1. 2010 UBO/UBU Conference 1 Title: Questionable Data – Potential Impact (of Your Data on Various Programs and Metrics) Session: T-4-1100

2. Objectives Identify major programs, applications, and metrics using cost, workload, or manpower data from MEPRS and other data systems For selected programs, describe how MEPRS and encounter data (e.g., SIDRs, SADRs/CAPERs) are used Discuss examples where “questionable” data may have an impact on the selected programs, possibly affecting MHS decisions 2 *NOTE: Presentation is from the viewpoint of those who use centrally available data rather than data from local systems

3. Selected Applications Inpatient Third Party Collection (TPC) Rates – Adjusted Standardized Amounts (ASAs) for billing third parties – MTF expense and SIDR data pooled within peer groups to create standardized rates U.S. Family Health Plan (USFHP) Capitation Rates – Former USTF/Designated Provider hospitals – Approximately 112,000 enrollees – Direct Care portion of rates based on expense and workload data from CONUS MTFs (MEPRS, SIDRs, SADRs, PDTS) Practice Management Revenue Model (PMRM) – Army PMRM used in productivity evaluation – “Purple PMRM” with Tri-Service data available from TMA – FTE data from MEPRS input to comparative metrics involving PPS earnings estimates 3

4. Selected Applications Costs on MDR/M2 Encounter Records – MEPRS expense data basis for unit costs: Standard Inpatient Data Records (SIDRs) Standard Ambulatory Data Records (SADRs/CAPERs) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) dispensing costs Lab/Rad “encounter” records – Resulting encounter record costs used in numerous analyses and metrics Metrics – Per Member Per Month (PMPM) costs Metric reported to the USD(P&R) level Adjusted MEPRS expenses allocated to enrollment categories based on encounter records workload 4 1/18/2011…call from Representative ????’s office asking about TRICARE funding. He wants to know how much goes into TRICARE every year and how much of that is spent on retirees vs. Active Duty and Reserve and Guard.

5. Selected Applications Metrics (continued) – Provider Productivity (RVUs per FTE) Metric reported to the USD(P&R) level FTE data from MEPRS; RVUs from SADRs Prospective Payment System (PPS) – Ratios of PPS earnings to MEPRS cost used to adjust for programmatic increases or decreases – Starting to use Radiology workload data from MEPRS Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (MERHCF) – Annual direct care Level of Effort (LOE) and reconciliation – Rates for future distributions 5

6. Selected Data Issues Affecting These Applications MEPRS Expenses w/o workload; workload w/o expenses Negative expenses Unallocated ancillary/support expenses Erroneous expense data (magnitude; appropriateness; FCC identification) “Lumpiness” of expense data across time Lack of association between FTEs and workload Data missing when applications are “due” Differences in Services’ accounting and/or reporting procedures 6

7. Selected Data Issues Affecting These Applications SIDRs – Questionable admissions – Bad dates (admission/discharge) – Excessive number of bed days – Discharges from ICUs SADRs (or CAPERs) – Questionable Units of Service (quantities) – Inpatient only procedures in ambulatory clinics – MEPRS-B SADRs (non-consultation) for inpatients RELATIONSHIPS – Match of SIDR/SADR/CAPER workload measures with MEPRS workload and expenses 7 Not to mention diagnosis and procedure coding issues

8. Costs on SIDRs & SADRs 8

9. Challenge/Goal Direct care encounter records — Standard Inpatient Data Records (SIDRs) and Standard Ambulatory Data Records (SADRs) are not billing/claims data, but contain patient-level clinical (limited) and workload data MEPRS captures expense data from financial systems and reports or allocates to clinical and non-clinical functional cost centers (FCCs; e.g., MEPRS-3 treatment clinic service) GOAL: Allocate appropriate costs of patient care, support and overhead activities to patient-level encounter records for various reporting and analysis purposes 9

10. Base Year Data Issues May Affect Encounter Records in Three FYs Unit costs are developed from the most recent complete year of MEPRS and encounter data Inflation rates are applied to take the unit costs forward for application in future years During annual SIDR/SADR retrofit process, record costs are updated so that, in as many years as possible, they are based on that same year’s costs and workload data 10

11. Expenses with No Workload NOTE: These are not errors, but notice the impact if discretion is not used when determining unit costs Well, THIS might be an error!!!!!!

12. Negative Expenses 12 WHAT??? Negative $1,503 per Visit?

13. Negative Expenses 13 Compare with and without the child clinic included

14. Unallocated Ancillary/Support? 14 What FINAL ACCOUNTS are missing these expenses? ???

15. Erroneous Expenses? 15 “Interestingly,” this same MTF had an identical problem with their FY09 data, but the problem was eventually corrected (Data extracted in late January 2011)

16. Rx Percentage of Ambulatory $ 16 Lumpiness: Pharmacy expenses recorded when drugs purchased rather than when dispensed?

17. Expenses vs. Workload 17 Cumulative Expenses?

18. ICUs – SIDR vs MEPRS 18 FY10 SIDR Dispositions from ICUs Should there be any? Where are these dispositions (and expenses) in MEPRS?

19. Dispensing Costs for Direct Care PDTS Records 19

20. 20 Why the Difference: Data Errors? Efficiency? Accounting Policy?

21. Why the Difference? 21 This “problem” is being corrected!

22. High-Level MHS Metrics 22

23. Per Member Per Month (PMPM) What are we measuring? The average percentage change in Defense Health Program annual cost per equivalent life compared with average civilian sector health insurance premium changes Why is it important? Metric looks at how well the MHS manages the care for individuals who have chosen to enroll in an HMO-type benefit (Prime). It is designed to capture aspects of three major management issues: 1.How efficiently the Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) provide care 2.How effectively the MTFs manage enrollee demand 3.How well the MTFs determine which care should be provided inside the facility versus purchased from a managed care support contractor 23

24. PMPM: Impact of Missing MEPRS Key metric periodically reported to the USD (P&R) Source of direct care costs and FTEs is MEPRS In one update, a large Medical Center was missing Contractor labor; in the same Service, multiple months of MEPRS data were missing at the cutoff date for metric reporting Overall PMPM with estimates for missing data were below the goal (green); when data were complete; TMA had to report back to the USD that the Service had failed to meet the goal (red) 24

25. RVUs per Primary Care Provider per Day What are we measuring? The Work RVUs for all the visits of a provider for a specified period attributed to a specific clinical site divided by the available FTEs of that provider in that clinic each day Why is it important? Reflects the availability of a specific provider for patient care and the volume/intensity of the associated work. National standards for Primary Care allow for comparison – If providers are below average, process improvement initiatives may be undertaken for increasing productivity – Practices of above average providers may lead to best practice dissemination Metric assumes a direct correlation between available FTEs and workload reported in a given cost center 25

26. Ambulatory Available FTEs by MEPRS-2 (Selected Major Medical Center) 26 Flatliner ?

27. Ambulatory Available FTEs & Visits 27 If RVU per FTE metrics are to be meaningful, there should be a strong correlation between workload (RVUs) and staffing (FTEs)

28. FTEs vs. Workload 28 Oops?

29. Coding/Reporting Issues: Impact on PPS Earnings 29

30. Prospective Payment System Attaches Value to MTF business plans – Fee for service rate for workload produced – Scores performance against plans Rates based on purchased-care prices – Average purchased care allowed amounts for DRGs, MH Bed Days, and RVUs – Not MTF costs – Adjusted for locality Computed at MTF level – Rolled up to Services for budget adjustments to Services – Services allocate budgetary funds to MTFs 30

31. Valuing MHS Workload Fee for Service Rates (FY10) Value per MS-RWP – $9,107 (MEPRS A codes) – Average amount allowed Including institutional and professional fees Excluding MH/SA Adjusted for local Wage index and Indirect Medical Education Adjustment (IME) Value per Mental Health Bed Day – $769 (MEPRS A codes) – Average amount allowed Including institutional and professional fees Adjusted for local Wage index and Indirect Medical Education Adjustment (IME) Value per RVU – $36 (MEPRS B codes) – Standard Rate – like TMAC/CMS Excluding Ancillary, Home Health, Facility Charges (except ER/SDS) Adjusted for local geographic price index both Work and Practice Value per APC – $67 (MEPRS B codes ER/SDS) – Standard Rate

32. Top 12 Inpatient-Only Procedures 32 Medicare/TRICARE: These should all be performed in Inpatient settings Not a large number, but tends to be concentrated in only a few MTFs

33. IP Only – One MTF’s Examples 33 At one MTF At another MTF Number of MEPRS-B SADRs with CPT 43645 not flagged as Inpatient with MS-DRG 621 on SIDR; most SADRs coded as Walk-Ins on day of admission

34. Coding or Practice? – PPS Impact 34 Why so different?

35. SIDRS, Off by a Year? – PPS Impact 35 Admission or Service (Discharge) Year Incorrect? How many bed days should this be?

36. Case Management Bonanza? 36 164,579 with Quantity = 1 Coding guidelines say Units of Service = 1

37. Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) 37 One Optometrist at a Troop Medical Clinic reported 260 of these with no modifiers in FY 2010

38. 38 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (MERHCF) Direct Care Level of Effort (LOE)

39. MERHCF Defined Established by Congress (2001 NDAA) to provide mandatory funding for a military retiree health care entitlement Covers certain Medicare-eligible DoD beneficiaries (military retirees, retiree family members and survivors— not simply “over-65s”) Pays for MTF care, purchased care and pharmacy Recognizes DoD’s accrued and future liability for cost of retiree/survivor health care for military service members and their family members based on actuarial analyses and assumptions about population characteristics 39

40. 40 Overview – MTF LOE Purpose: To estimate annual DoD expenses for Military Treatment Facility (MTF) care of Medicare-eligible DoD and other uniformed services retirees, dependents of retirees and survivors Results support reconciliation of annual Accrual Fund charges and projection of future MERHCF direct care budget allocations and reimbursement rates Level of Effort (LOE) procedures comply with DODI 6070.2 Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund Operations

41. 41 LOE Methodology Expense data from the EAS-IV Repository – Inpatient (MEPRS-A) – Ambulatory (MEPRS-B less Rx) – Pharmacy (stepped-down to MEPRS B&F) Workload data from patient encounter records in the MHS Data Repository (MDR) – Inpatient: Standard Inpatient Data Records (SIDR) – Ambulatory: Standard Ambulatory Data Records (SADR) – Pharmacy: Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) Records

42. 42 Direct Care Expense Allocation MEPRS expenses are allocated to beneficiary categories on the following bases: – Inpatient – Relative Weighted Products (RWP, DRG based) from SIDRs – Ambulatory – Ambulatory Patient Group (APG) weighted work units from SADRs – Pharmacy – Prescription counts (for admin costs) and ingredient costs (for pharmaceuticals) in PDTS LOE beneficiary categories used are: – (1) Active Duty, (2) Active Duty Family Member, (3) Non-Accrual Fund Retiree, (4) Non-Accrual Fund Retiree Family Mbr/Srv, (5) Accrual Fund Retiree, (6) Accrual Fund Retiree Family Mbr/Srv and, (7) All Other MTF patients

43. Identifying Pharmacy – by Program Element Code (PEC) 0807701 Pharmaceuticals in Defense Medical Centers, Station Hospitals, and Medical Clinics – CONUS – Includes pharmaceuticals specifically identified and measurable to provision of Pharmacy Services in DoD owned and operated CONUS facilities – Excludes manpower authorizations, support equipment and other costs directly associated with the production and operation of DoD owned and operated facilities – PE designed specifically to collect pharmaceuticals. Includes all prescription supply items used in direct patient care by hospitals, dental clinics, veterinary clinics and other clinics such as Occupational Health Clinics… 0807901 Pharmaceuticals in Defense Medical Centers, Station Hospitals, and Medical Clinics – OCONUS 43

44. FY10 MERHCF LOE Pharmaceutical PEC & SEEC Mismatch 44 This problem is also being corrected – but requires substantial reprocessing.

45. FY07 MERHCF LOE Impact of Incomplete Army MEPRS 45 Army lost $20.0 million or 3.3% of their FY07 – based MERHCF distribution Official results submitted 29 April 2008 Updated results computed 13 June 2008

46. FY09 MERHCF LOE Impact of Incomplete Air Force MEPRS 46 Official results submitted 21 April 2010 Updated results computed 24 May 2010 Air Force lost $23.5 million or 3.7% of their FY09- based MERHCF distribution

47. Concluding Thoughts MEPRS and encounter data are used in many programs, applications and metrics Uncorrected data problems can affect the outcome of studies, analyses, metrics, and resulting decisions Detection/correction of various data problems centrally takes time and is difficult to accomplish systematically Local detection/correction of data problems is most effective Several tools are available to assist in identification of data problems Recommend session on Thursday: R-6-1000-1150, Using the M2 to Identify & Manage MTF Data Quality 47